Trump to Apple: Get Out of India or Pay 25% Tariff

Former U.S. President Donald Trump has reignited his campaign for American manufacturing by threatening Apple Inc. with a 25% tariff on iPhones if the company continues assembling them in India. The demand, posted on his social media platform Truth Social, places the tech giant in the middle of rising U.S. protectionist sentiments and global supply chain realignments.
“I have long informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America to be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote. “If that doesn’t happen, a Tariff of at least 25% must be paid by Apple to the U.S.”

The statement comes as Apple significantly expands its manufacturing footprint in India — primarily in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka — through contract partners like Foxconn, Pegatron, and Wistron (now acquired by Tata Electronics). Currently, India produces approximately 7% of Apple’s global iPhone output, with aggressive targets to scale further.
Apple’s expansion into India wasn’t just about cost — it was a strategic diversification from China. Rising geopolitical tensions, COVID-era supply disruptions, and U.S.-China trade wars forced Apple to reduce its dependency on Chinese manufacturing.

India emerged as an attractive alternative due to:

• Low labor costs
• Massive workforce availability
• Production Linked Incentive (PLI) schemes
• Stable political ties with the U.S.
• Ease of doing business reforms in tech clusters like Chennai and Bengaluru

By 2025, Apple is expected to move up to 25% of its total iPhone production to India, according to JP Morgan estimates. This shift aligns with India’s broader “Make in India” strategy to become a global electronics manufacturing hub.
Trump’s tariff threat introduces a significant variable — cost. Here’s how the proposed policy could reshape the economics for Apple, India, and the U.S.:

• Higher production costs: U.S. labor and infrastructure expenses are substantially higher than India’s. Building an iPhone in the U.S. could raise production costs by 30–40%.
• Retail price hikes: These increased costs would likely be passed to American consumers. Analysts estimate an iPhone could cost $100–$150 more if fully made in the U.S.
• Supply chain delays: Apple’s India supply chain is becoming more mature; rebuilding that in the U.S. would take years and billions in investment.

• Job creation: According to Ajay Srivastava, founder of the Global Trade Research Initiative, shifting iPhone assembly to the U.S. could create 60,000 to 300,000 jobs, mostly in skilled manufacturing. These jobs could help revive the shrinking U.S. industrial base.
• Inflationary pressure: Higher iPhone prices could contribute to consumer inflation — a concern amid already high living costs.
• Trade friction risk: Tariffs imposed on companies using Indian production could strain U.S.–India trade relations.

• Manufacturing slowdown: Apple’s India operations employ tens of thousands, directly and indirectly. A retreat could stall India’s ambitions to become the “next China” in electronics.
• Investment deterrent: A reversal by Apple might make other tech companies rethink India as a stable investment destination.
• Policy response: Indian officials have so far remained calm. In response to earlier Trump remarks, a senior government official told The Hindu there was “no concern” about Apple's India commitments being affected.

This isn’t the only recent U.S. move that hints at a harder stance on foreign engagement. Just days before Trump’s Apple post, the U.S. banned Harvard University from enrolling new foreign students — a decision that shocked global academia and led to renewed discussions about the country’s inward economic and educational policy shifts.

These two actions — one targeting global manufacturing, the other global talent — show a broader push to restrict foreign reliance, even at the cost of economic efficiency or global goodwill.
Apple now faces a strategic dilemma:

• Comply with Trump’s vision and bring iPhone production home — which would require massive investment, longer timelines, and an entirely new workforce training ecosystem.
• Continue with its India strategy, risking tariffs and political backlash in the U.S. — but maintaining cost advantages and global supply flexibility.

Given the current administration's relatively neutral stance on Apple’s global production (compared to Trump’s aggressive policies), the company may choose to wait out political cycles. But with the 2024 U.S. elections bringing unpredictability, Apple’s global supply strategy is now more politically exposed than ever.
Trump’s ultimatum to Apple is more than campaign-season bluster — it’s a test of how globalized American companies can remain in an era of rising economic nationalism. While a U.S.-based iPhone sounds patriotic, the cost, complexity, and geopolitical risk may outweigh the political brownie points.

Apple now stands at a crossroads. Will it choose economic efficiency in India, or bow to political pressure back home?

And for India — a nation betting big on electronics — this may be a signal to broaden its tech manufacturing vision beyond one fruit-branded phone.

Explore the latest trends and tips in Health & Fitness, Travel, Life Hacks, Fashion & Beauty, and Relationships at Times Life!